canon rumors FORUM

I see a lot of defensive and insecure posts here. Just because 5D3I has DR of 11.3 and D800/600 have 14+, it doesn't mean you have to attack DxO and others. If anything attack Canon for their inferior sensors recycled from circa early 2000s. Get a grip.

Furthermore, a good photographer can use his p&s to create more interesting shots than a retard with D800. So, as you can see there is no need to project inferiority complex. Be happy with what you have, or switch.

Just because 5D3I has DR of 11.3 and D800/600 have 14+, it doesn't mean you have to attack DxO and others.

Ok, I give up. You're right - DxO are technological geniuses, their Scores are the epitome of scientific analysis, the D800 does have 14.4 EV of real, measurable DR, and because of that DR, you were able to recover amazing shadow detail from a backlit shot - detail that revealed a winged pig flying over snowbanks in hell.

Let's see if I can be a bit inflammatory here but still get my point across:

(new) Canon cameras suck... FOR THE PRICE!

The problem is not that you can't take wonderful photos with Canon cameras... you absolutely can. And while it is somewhat dodging the question to say "it's the photographer that counts" that is totally true. I've taken tons of great photos with my "crappy" XSi and "sucky" 7D: http://500px.com/friedmud

Personally, I love everything about my 7D... EXCEPT the image quality for the price I paid. I don't feel like the IQ was worth $1,500. Everything else about the camera _almost_ makes up for it... but when I get home from a few weeks in England (like I recently did) and load up my photos for the first time... I sigh a bit when I see all the noise (even at ISO100!)... and when I try to pull back some cloud detail on a slightly missed exposure (even when I did use ND grads I still slightly missed)... and when I need to add a butt ton of color and play with the curves to get those ocean sunsets to look they way they did in real life.

Then I shoot with a D600 for 5 days on a rental... and it is immediately clear that the IQ is _worth_ $2100 and I say to myself "Why didn't I get this from my 7D? It's not that big of a difference in price and even though the sensor tech is older, Canon is still putting it in brand new cameras and obviously believes that there is nothing wrong with it..."

Then I see reviews where the 5Dmk3 is basically on-par with the D600 in terms of IQ (some tests showing D600 is better some showing 5Dmk3 is better)... but there is a _$1400_ price premium on the 5Dmk3!

Just because 5D3I has DR of 11.3 and D800/600 have 14+, it doesn't mean you have to attack DxO and others.

Ok, I give up. You're right - DxO are technological geniuses, their Scores are the epitome of scientific analysis, the D800 does have 14.4 EV of real, measurable DR, and because of that DR, you were able to recover amazing shadow detail from a backlit shot - detail that revealed a winged pig flying over snowbanks in hell.

Whatever.

There are a lot of silly Nikon fanboy posts. However, the vast majority of the criticism of DxO comes from people who not only do NOT understand this stuff better than DxO, most of the critics on closer examination have no idea what they are talking about. You would think that showing a little humility would be good form when criticizing someone who knows this stuff in some depth (as vague hand waving doesn't cut it when you implement software -- you need to have a very solid grounding in the theory behind it)

Most of the critics, however, despite (or perhaps because of) knowing very little have no such inhibitions. Indeed, it seems that the less knowledgeable the critic, the less nuanced and the more forceful the criticism.

It could well be the case that there is a better method to benchmark sensors than those used by DxO -- however, no-one (including the know-nothing loudmouth camera "fans" on the internet) is able to present and follow through on better methods.

The criticism of the 14.4 stops for the 14 bit ADC is not only just plain wrong (their method is just fine -- the point is that you gain dynamic range by downsampling), it's also a bit of a red herring when you're comparing cameras of comparable resolution. Those who object to downsampling (usually because they don't understand it) are welcome to the screen numbers instead never mind that this number is only relevant if you customarily view images as 100% crops. The screen numbers also show the Canon sensor struggling at low ISOs).

Personally, I love everything about my 7D... EXCEPT the image quality for the price I paid. I don't feel like the IQ was worth $1,500. Everything else about the camera _almost_ makes up for it... but when I get home from a few weeks in England (like I recently did) and load up my photos for the first time... I sigh a bit when I see all the noise (even at ISO100!)...

For all the people who claim to see noise from 7D files at ISO 100: What the **** are you doing to get that noise? Seriously. I don't see it in my shots. I don't see it in review site shots. And it's certainly not backed up by DPReview's noise graphs.

Are you consistently underexposing by 4 stops or something? Are you just completely mismanaging your RAW converter settings? What?

According to the DPReview noise graphs the 7D at 100 is as clean or cleaner than a D4 at 400. So are you going to tell me that Nikon's full frame, low light, professional sports flagship at 400 is noisy? Disappointing? Not worth the money? The RAW graphs pretty much overlap for the 7D and 5D3 at 100. I suppose a 5D3 is noisy and not worth the money to?

Quote

It's not that big of a difference in price and even though the sensor tech is older, Canon is still putting it in brand new cameras and obviously believes that there is nothing wrong with it..."

Canon is not recycling and selling you old tech. They are not sitting on their rear ends. But Sony has a patent on how they read data off the sensor, and Canon cannot work around that patent at this time. From what I've read, Canon actually has superior tech across other aspects of the sensor, i.e. if the patent didn't exist they would have less total noise.

Quote

Then I see reviews where the 5Dmk3 is basically on-par with the D600 in terms of IQ (some tests showing D600 is better some showing 5Dmk3 is better)... but there is a _$1400_ price premium on the 5Dmk3!

But it can't be. The noise values are practically the same with a 7D at 100. So it must just be a horrible camera

How did anyone ever make photographs with a 1Ds? Or the original 5D? Or...film???

Just look at the sky. But it's not just in the sky... it's everywhere. If you do any sharpening you can see it on any surface that is fairly uniform. If you try to remove some you lose detail.

I am NOT mismanaging anything. This camera leads to a direct tradeoff between noise and detail. I'm not the only person on the planet to see it. The above image is perfectly exposed (possibly ever so slightly over exposed). Very little postprocessing has been done to it.

And please don't come at me with "but it won't show up in a 24" print!". I can clearly see the noise on my 30" monitor (2560x1600) at work where I use my photos as my desktop background... it _does_ show up in at least one use case that is important to me ;-)

Look at the shot with the buildings (click on it to get a zoomed view). Compare the skys. Look at uniform surfaces and look at the amount of noise.

I went over to the Imaging Resource and compared the Still Life scene for the 7D at ISO 100 and tried to find the ISO setting for the D600 that most closely matched. To me, it was in-between 400 and 800... just like I said a bit ago.

This is a systemic problem with Canon. They simply do not care about LOW ISO performance. That's ok, I realize that a lot of people care more about high ISO performance... but Nikon does seem to be putting a lot of effort into good low ISO and at a more affordable price.

Canon is not recycling and selling you old tech. They are not sitting on their rear ends. But Sony has a patent on how they read data off the sensor, and Canon cannot work around that patent at this time. From what I've read, Canon actually has superior tech across other aspects of the sensor, i.e. if the patent didn't exist they would have less total noise.

Really? The 7D was introduced in mid 2009. That exact same sensor has also been used in:

1. If this is really THE problem and Canon really cared they would license that patent from Sony.2. If this is really the problem and Canon really cared they would have put the R&D effort in and come up with the advancement first.3. Why, in 3 years has Canon not come up with a better idea?

Also, I love how you first say "there is no problem" and then simultaneously blame a Sony patent for the problem. You can't have it both ways. Do Canon sensors have more noise or not?

But it can't be. The noise values are practically the same with a 7D at 100. So it must just be a horrible camera

How did anyone ever make photographs with a 1Ds? Or the original 5D? Or...film???

Apologist at work. Yes, great images can be made with any modern DSLR (we've been over that before). But what I'm concerned with is: all other things being equal (which we know they're not, but we have to start somewhere to come to conclusions) which machine will generate the best image? Even better, which machine generates the best image per dollar I put into buying it?

For all the people who claim to see noise from 7D files at ISO 100: What the **** are you doing to get that noise?

Pressing the shutter button.

There is a hell of a lot more to photography than simply pressing the shutter button. You have to use the camera in your hands to maximum effect to get the most out of it. If simply "pressing the shutter button" is all you do, you are probably better off with a "point and shoot" camera.

I think I remember you. I believe I may have actually recommended the 7D to you almost a year ago now? Seriously, dude.... that blue sky is a thing of WONDER. It is a clean, smooth gradient that looks fantastic on my screen. Simple irony here.... if there was ZERO noise, your sky would probably look a hell of a lot worse.... you'd get posterization and banding as the DR of the camera is compressed into the DR of your computer screen, and you start getting quantization error. Why the heck are you complaining about the noise in that photo? As I told you a year ago...that photo looks great, and IMHO, is a superb example of how WELL the 7D performs.

I am NOT mismanaging anything. This camera leads to a direct tradeoff between noise and detail. I'm not the only person on the planet to see it. The above image is perfectly exposed (possibly ever so slightly over exposed). Very little postprocessing has been done to it.

Thats great! Because that photo, particularly its sky, looks great! I'd like you to just try removing all the noise in the sky, then tell me how much more you like the posterization and banding you'll inevitably end up with. I'll gladly take the small, barely visible amount of photon shot noise there myself (which, BTW, is exacerbated because the sky is heavily dependent on blue pixels, which comprise only 25% of the total pixels in the sensor...so noise is always exacerbated in the blue channel...on every bayer-type camera.)

And please don't come at me with "but it won't show up in a 24" print!". I can clearly see the noise on my 30" monitor (2560x1600) at work where I use my photos as my desktop background... it _does_ show up in at least one use case that is important to me ;-)

I also have a 30" monitor that is properly calibrated to a proper brightness level that I am using right this very moment to look at your photo. If you have your screen set to minimum brightness, then your causing part of your own problem. Set it to at least 180mcd, in a dimly lit environment (you'll probably need it to be brighter in a well lit or sunlit environment) and see of noise is still really a problem. (If it is, either you have a crappy screen, your sitting WAY too close to your screen, or you have some ungodly good visual acuity and might benefit from some contacts that diminish your hypersharp vision a bit. ;P)

According to the DPReview noise graphs the 7D at 100 is as clean or cleaner than a D4 at 400.

What are you trying to prove with that statement? Why do you think ~ISO 400 noise is acceptable at 100? This is actually making my point that ISO 100 is not good on a 7D.

Again, this is a matter of physics. Take your tetons photo with a D800, and your experience with noise will be EXACTLY THE SAME as with the 7D. The only thing Poisson noise has to do with the sensor is that on a 1:1 viewing scale, it increases on a per-pixel basis as pixel size shrinks. The D800 has 4.6 micron pixels, the 7D has 4.3 micron pixels. Now, while I take issue with rating hardware capabilities according to the VIRTUAL results obtained by downscaling, as I believe it inflates the expected hardware capabilities to the unsuspecting reader, when it comes to observable noise, downscale is indeed necessary to make a normalized visual comparison. Downscale either the D800 or 7D image to D4 size and the IQ results will be very similar (regardless of how DR might be affected.)

Poisson (photon shot) noise shrinks as pixel size increases. If that is your primary concern, you need to get a camera with a LARGE sensor and FEW pixels. A 1D X, D4, or any one of the 12mp Nikon cameras will probably serve you superbly well. You won't be able to capture as much detail as the 7D in any focal-length limited situation, however since you don't seem to be much interested in enlarging for print, you won't really be at a disadvantage. This is all ignoring the fact that you can downscale an ISO 100 7D image to say 12mp size, and realize the same IQ as any one of those cameras mentioned above.

As a matter of fact, somewhere on this forum I took one of the photos you took with your own 7D and uploaded here as an example of how bad things were. I took that photo, downscaled it a bit, and reuploaded it to demonstrate the results...which IMO were nothing less than an astounding near-total elimination of ALL the noise in ALL of the areas you were complaining about. Hmm...maybe I should go dig up your own "evidence" of the 7D's presumed suckiness and my own prior refutation of it....?

Look at the shot with the buildings (click on it to get a zoomed view). Compare the skys. Look at uniform surfaces and look at the amount of noise.

I went over to the Imaging Resource and compared the Still Life scene for the 7D at ISO 100 and tried to find the ISO setting for the D600 that most closely matched. To me, it was in-between 400 and 800... just like I said a bit ago.

This is a systemic problem with Canon. They simply do not care about LOW ISO performance. That's ok, I realize that a lot of people care more about high ISO performance... but Nikon does seem to be putting a lot of effort into good low ISO and at a more affordable price.

Your confusing a physical matter that we don't have control over...noise exhibited by the random nature of light as it follows a statistical poisson distribution, and noise introduced by the sensor. Sensor noise, which is indeed an aspect of engineering (although not a FLAW as many such as yourself seem to indicate by the way you talk about "noise"), is only visible in the deep shadows. You would have to do some rather major lifting to really see the really nasty stuff...such as FPN and HVBN. Your not complaining about a "sensor defect" or "crappy engineering". Your complaining about the physical nature of light, and how a sensor with small pixels exhibits that nature. It doesn't matter who makes the sensor, EVERY sensor with pixels around the same size as the 7D will experience the same thing.

Canon is not recycling and selling you old tech. They are not sitting on their rear ends. But Sony has a patent on how they read data off the sensor, and Canon cannot work around that patent at this time. From what I've read, Canon actually has superior tech across other aspects of the sensor, i.e. if the patent didn't exist they would have less total noise.

Really? The 7D was introduced in mid 2009. That exact same sensor has also been used in:

1. If this is really THE problem and Canon really cared they would license that patent from Sony.2. If this is really the problem and Canon really cared they would have put the R&D effort in and come up with the advancement first.3. Why, in 3 years has Canon not come up with a better idea?

You do realize that most of the patents Sony is now capitalizing on are a lot older than the 7D, right? Sony has been sitting on a goldmine mountain of CMOS and CCD sensor design patents for a long time. Some have been in use since the late 1990's, some since around 5-6 years ago when they would have had to start manufacturing prototypes and retail versions of the sensors for the likes of the D7000, and some are newer that have been introduced over the last several years in numerous sensors from phone cam sensors to the D800. They probably have a boatload more up their sleeve (such as a double-layered microlens for back-illuminated sensor patent that I haven't heard is actually in use anywhere but possibly some small form factor phone and P&S type cameras.)

It's not like Canon simply failed to innovate the technology 3 years ago. Its that Sony either created or purchased the technology starting well over a decade ago, and have only had the capability to fully integrate all of it into a single sensor more recently. It is no mean feat to pack the kind of circuitry needed for low read noise into the space of a single pixel, especially a 4.3 micron pixel. And thats nothing to say of on-die column-parallel ADC, which required some amazing feats of its own. That requires some very advanced manufacturing technology, some extremely skilled and intelligent engineers, and a hell of a lot of money to do. Sony can capitalize it as their sensors drive some half the total marketplace for consumer and professional grade sensors in total. Canon has to not only come up with something on their own, they have to come up with something that is different enough from Sony's patents that they don't get slapped with a lawsuit. There are certainly other ways to reduce read noise, but as indicated, it ain't cheap nor easy to invent, develop, and realize in commercial products.

Canon has long prided and sold themselves as a vertically integrated company that owns and controls the entire manufacturing process. That has worked well for Canon so far, and outside of the single issue of low ISO DR (which is only at most 20% worse than an Exmor sensor, and usually less than that), Canon's technology is stellar. Their high ISO performance is unparalleled, and high ISO use in very low light is the name of the game for the true drivers of DSLR sales...sports and photojournalism. Canon lens technology is well ahead of the competition, and rivals if not surpasses that of Ziess these days (you have to use one of their new Mark II supertelephoto lenses to really understand that, they offer the most mind-blowing IQ I've ever encountered.) All other Canon DSLR tech these days, at least when it comes to the cream of the crop, is at the pinnacle of the current generation.

Also, I love how you first say "there is no problem" and then simultaneously blame a Sony patent for the problem. You can't have it both ways. Do Canon sensors have more noise or not?

Lets be more precise. Canon sensors have slightly more READ NOISE than Sony Exmor sensors. Canon sensors have the same READ NOISE as pretty much any other sensor on the market, including those *manufactured* by Nikon, as well as those used in medium format cameras. In general, when signal is sufficiently stronger than read noise, the remaining noise quotient is the same across cameras when pixel-pitch is normalized.

Noise is not the issue. Read noise, which only occurs in the lower fraction of the signal, only matters because of how it affects DR, and exhibits when you try to lift shadows. And that only occurs at ISO 100 and ISO 200, and is only worse in a Canon sensor when it is compared to a Sony Exmor sensor.

But it can't be. The noise values are practically the same with a 7D at 100. So it must just be a horrible camera

How did anyone ever make photographs with a 1Ds? Or the original 5D? Or...film???

Apologist at work. Yes, great images can be made with any modern DSLR (we've been over that before). But what I'm concerned with is: all other things being equal (which we know they're not, but we have to start somewhere to come to conclusions) which machine will generate the best image? Even better, which machine generates the best image per dollar I put into buying it?

On that second measure Canon is not even close (at least at low ISO).

Well, your last sentence is the only valid one, however as a weighted ratio relative to everything else involved in a DSLR, and all the other skill required to actually make a photograph...it affects a very small percentage of photographers in general. Those who will be affected most are probably landscape photographers, and them vastly more so than any other type of photographer. There are a far greater number of photographers who not only use but greatly need higher ISO performance, above ISO 400. For someone such as myself, who rarely uses anything lower than ISO 400, and is usually at ISO 800 or 1600, the 7D performs superbly. It took me some time to really fully come to terms with how to properly use the 7D for what I do, however once I did I learned that it can indeed make photos with phenomenal IQ. So, sure, the 7D may be inferior at low ISO vs. a whole lot of the competition. However for what it is, the 7D is still one of the best options available to those of us who can't shell out five, six, SEVEN GRAND every few years to buy the likes of a 1D IV, a 1D X, or a D4. The 7D is still the best offering of its class even when pitted against the newer options from Nikon.

For you personally, friedmud, I must apologize for my original recommendation to get a 7D. I was not aware of your full needs. The 7D is entirely the wrong camera for you, it always was (even before the D800 was released), and always will be. In all honesty, I wouldn't recommend the D800 either, as with its small pixel pitch you would still see the same kind of blue sky noise as the 7D, since that noise has nothing to do with sensor technology, and everything to do with the nature of light. You would really probably be better off with a 1D X or any one of the 12mp cameras from the previous generation of Nikon DSLR's.